DOCSLIB.ORG

Tibetan Languages Version Finale Web

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tibetan Languages Version Finale Web The Tibetic languages and their classification (Preprint version, Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, De Gruyter, 2013) Nicolas Tournadre 1 1. Various meanings of “Tibetic” The term “Tibetic” has been used in the recent past by some authors in different ways to refer to various intermediate levels of classification within Tibeto-Burman (e.g. Matisoff 2003, Beckwith 2006, Lewis 2009, Blench 2011, de Haan 2011, DeLancey 2012, van Driem 2012, Noonan 2012, Chirkova in press inter alia ). 2 Depending on the author, “Tibetic” may be used to refer to a high level of sub-grouping more or less equivalent to “Bodic” or “Himalayish” or to a lower level of sub-grouping such as “Bodish” or an even lower level as an alternative form for “Tibetan languages/dialects”. “Bodic”, also referred to as “Tibeto-Himalayan” (Michailovsky 2011), groups together many Eastern Himalayan languages (such as the Kiranti languages), Western Himalayan languages (such as Kannauri, Almora), the so-called “Tibetan dialects” and “Bodish languages” (such as Tamang, Gurung, Bumthang, Tshangla etc.). “Bodic” is a “heterogenous and impressionistic” group (van Driem 2011: 31). “Bodish”, sometimes referred to as Tibeto-Kannauri, although less problematic is also not well-defined. It groups together the “Tibetan dialects”, Tamangic languages and some other languages such as Tshangla, Bumthang, Kurtoep, Bake 3 etc. The historical comparative methodology has so far not provided common innovations which would delimit clearly the Bodish subgroup. We can only agree with Matisoff’s (1989, 1990) note of caution to megalo- reconstructionists, or van Driem who states that it is safer “to discover the structure of the [Tibeto-Burman] family tree by working up from the firmer group of lower-level subgroups to the higher levels of superordinate subgroups” (2011: 37). Thus the use of “Tibetic” to replace already existing labels referring to subgroups which are not well- defined or to create new intermediate levels of classification without clear scientific criteria is not appropriate. 1 Aix-Marseille University and CNRS (Lacito). I would like to warmly thank Nathan W. Hill, Guillaume Jacques, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Randy LaPolla, Lauren Gawne and two anonymous reviewers, who read an earlier version of this article for their relevant remarks and suggestions. 2 The Sino-Tibetan macrofamily groups together the “Tibeto-Burman” and “Sinitic” languages. I think it is more convenient and appropriate to call this macrofamily Sino-Tibeto-Burman (STB), because it allows us to clearly include the Sinitic languages (whatever their status may be) when discussing general issues about the inner and outer classification of the Tibeto-Burman subgroup. However, in this paper, I will use the traditional taxon ‘Tibeto-Burman’ (TB). 3 Bake or brag-skad is a language spoken near the Basum lake (brag-gsum mtsho) in the Kongpo area, less than 500 kms from Lhasa. Because of its various meanings, the term “Tibetic” could become useless, unless it receives a precise definition and is used in a consistent way. 2. Definition of “Tibetic” The term “Tibetic” could, however, become a useful replacement for the notion of “Tibetan dialects”, which is not appropriate for various reasons. First, the notion of “Tibetan dialects” implies the existence of a single “Tibetan language”. However, the so-called “Tibetan dialects” refer in fact to various languages which do not allow mutual intelligibility. Until the last decades of the 20th century, many scholars would still classify the “Tibetan dialects” into three major groups: Khams 4 , Amdo, Ü-Tsang (thus taking into account only the “dialects” found in China) or into five major dialects: Central (Ü-Tsang), Southeastern (Khams), Western, Southern and Northeastern (Amdo) 5. In recent years, some authors such as Sun (2003a, 2006, 2007), Suzuki (2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2011a, 2011b), Zeisler (2011, 2012), Haller (2000, 2004, 2009), and Chirkova (2005, 2008b), to name a few, have provided new data on various languages and dialects of the area. These very significant contributions have resulted in new developments in the understanding of the Tibetan linguistic area and its diversity. Second, these “Tibetan dialects” are spoken not only by Tibetans per se but also by other ethnic groups such as Ladakhi, Balti, Lahuli, Sherpa, Bhutanese, Sikkimese Lhopo, etc. who do not consider themselves to be Tibetans 6. They do not call their language “Tibetan”. In a similar way, we do not talk of Latin Languages but of Romance languages and do not think of French, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan or Romanian as various dialects of Latin. 7 With the recent descriptions of many new “dialects” or “languages”, scholars of Tibetan linguistics have come to realize the incredible diversity of this linguistic area. The representation of a single language is no longer viable and we have to speak of a language family. In fact, the Tibetic linguistic family is comparable in size and diversity to the Romance or Germanic families. 4 I use here the orthograph Khams (which corresponds to the Wylie transliteration and not the pronunciation) because the word Kham also refers to a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Nepal and not related to Tibetan. 5 See Gesang Jumian [1964] 2002; Qu Aitang 1996. For a critical approach, see Sun 2003a or Tournadre 2005. 6 In many areas outside Tibet, such as the southern Himalayas, people speaking Tibetan-related languages sometimes call themselves ‘Bhutia’ (་ཊི bhoTi ) or ‘Lamas’ (་མ་ bla-ma) . 7 Nor would we think of English as a dialect of German just because German and English belong to the Germanic family. However the term “dialect” is sometimes used in a broader sense and means related varieties: so, for example, one of the definitions of “dialect” given in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) is “one of two or more cognate languages : French and Italian are Romance dialects ”. The term “Tibetic” is thus very convenient to denote a well-defined family of languages derived from Old Tibetan 8. The language called Old Tibetan was spoken at the time of the Tibetan empire (7th--9th centuries). According to Hill “Old Tibetan was originally spoken in the Yarlung valley, the cradle of the Tibetan empire” (2010: 111). While I tend to agree with this statement, it is hard to delimit the precise extension of the area where this language was spoken as well the degree of dialectal diversity at the time of the Empire. Much more controversial is Hill’s remark about the relationship between “Common Tibetan”, the ancestor of all the modern languages (see Section 4 below on Proto-Tibetic) and Old Tibetan: “Because Tibetan languages began to diverge from each other some centuries after Old Tibetan was committed to writing, the written system represents an état de langue (Old Tibetan) older than that reconstructible via the comparative method (Common Tibetan)” (2010: 112). Old Tibetan is very similar to the Classical Literary language which has preserved a very archaic orthography. And indeed, all the modern languages not only have regular reflexes of Classical Literary Tibetan (CLT), they also share a core vocabulary and grammar. The Tibetic language family belongs to a very small circle of language families throughout the world, derived from a common language which is identical or closely related to an old literary language 9. This small group includes for example the Romance languages with Latin, the Arabic languages (or “dialects”) with Classical Arabic, the Sinitic languages with Middle Chinese 10 , the modern Indic languages with Vedic Sanskrit 11 etc. There are only a few other examples of this specific relation between a proto-language and an old literary language. These language groups or families have a great significance not only for the theory of language evolution but also for the typology of sound changes, for morphology and syntax. It is particularly true for Tibetan since some of the attested sound changes have no equivalent in European languages. As Jacques (p.c.) rightly points out, “a general model about the evolution of languages has to take into consideration the specific features of the Tibetic languages. Their interest goes well beyond the Sino-Tibetan macrofamily”. 8 Although in some rare cases such as Baima or Khalong, a Qiangic substratum is a very probable hypothesis. 9 The ideas elaborated in this paragraph were suggested by Guillaume Jacques, whom I thank. 10 Except maybe the Min dialects which bear more archaic features. 11 A few languages have old literary relatives but these literary forms can not be considered as (nearly) identical to the proto-languages: this is for example the case of the Runic inscriptions in relation to Proto- Germanic, Avestan and Old Persian in relation to Proto-Iranian, or Old Church Slavonic in relation to Proto- Slavic. In the case of Iranian or Slavonic languages, the Old Literary languages are precious to reconstruct the Proto-languages but their reconstruction is achieved by the comparative method. 3. Identification of Tibetic languages The identification of a Tibetic language should thus be based on a number of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical criteria, which we will mention below. It is important to use such criteria also for the so-called “Bodish” languages, as well as the rGyalrongic and Qiangic languages languages spoken in eastern Tibet (China). These Tibeto-Burman subgroups have been heavily influenced by Classical Literary Tibetan and various spoken forms of Tibetan because of political, cultural and liturgical factors, and together with the southern Himalayan Bodish languages of Nepal, India and Bhutan they can be considered to belong to the “Tibetosphere” 12 , i.e. the sphere of influence of the Tibetan language, culture and religion. In the cases of some languages spoken in the Tibetosphere (such as Bake, Tshona Mönpa, Kheng, Kurtöp etc.), the existence of numerous loanwords from Tibetan may at first give the wrong impression that they are Tibetic languages.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Hackathon for Classical Tibetan
    A Hackathon for Classical Tibetan Orna Almogi1, Lena Dankin2*, Nachum Dershowitz2,3, Lior Wolf2 1Universität Hamburg, Germany 2Tel Aviv University, Israel 3Institut d’Études Avancées de Paris, France *Corresponding author: Lena Dankin, [email protected] Abstract We describe the course of a hackathon dedicated to the development of linguistic tools for Tibetan Buddhist studies. Over a period of five days, a group of seventeen scholars, scientists, and students developed and compared algorithms for intertextual alignment and text classification, along with some basic language tools, including a stemmer and word segmenter. Keywords Tibetan; Buddhist studies; hackathon; stemming; segmentation; intertextual alignment; text classification. I INTRODUCTION In February 2016, a group of four Tibetologists (from the University of Hamburg), one digital humanities scholar (from Europe), and twelve computer scientists (from Israel and Europe) got together in Kibbutz Lotan in the Arava region of Israel with the stated goal of developing algorithmic methods for advancing Tibetan Buddhist textual studies. Participants were either recruited by the organizers or responded to an announcement on several mailing lists. See Figure 1. Most of the computer scientists had background in machine learning, and a few of them also had experience with natural language processing (NLP) research, but without any prior experience with Tibetan texts. The computer scientist organizers were quite familiar with programming workshops and contests and thought that the challenges presented by Tibetan texts would pose an ideal opportunity to explore the hackathon format. The hackathon is a short and intense event where computer scientists collaborate to develop software. For that purpose, it was essential to recruit as many software developers as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Documentation in the Aftermath of the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes: a Guide to Two Archives and a Web Exhibit
    Vol. 13 (2019), pp. 618–651 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24914 Revised Version Received: 4 Nov 2019 Language documentation in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes: A guide to two archives and a web exhibit Kristine Hildebrandt Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Tanner Burge-Beckley Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Jacob Sebok Southern Illinois University Edwardsville We describe two institutionally related archives and an online exhibit represent- ing a set of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal. These archives and exhibit were built to house materials resulting from documentation of twelve Tibeto-Burman languages in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes. This account includes a detailed discussion of the different materials recorded, and how they were pre- pared for the collections. This account also provides a comparison of the two different types of archives, the different but complementary functions they serve, and a discussion of the role that online exhibits can play in the context of language documentation archives. 1. Introduction 1 The field of documentary linguistics has made use of a widear- ray of increasingly sophisticated computing technologies in recent years in order to archive, catalogue, and ultimately preserve vast quantities of audio, video, and text materials from endangered and vulnerable languages for future access by com- munity members and scholars alike. Notable examples of data archival reposito- ries, hosted and managed by higher educational institutions
    [Show full text]
  • On Bhutanese and Tibetan Dzongs **
    ON BHUTANESE AND TIBETAN DZONGS ** Ingun Bruskeland Amundsen** “Seen from without, it´s a rocky escarpment! Seen from within, it´s all gold and treasure!”1 There used to be impressive dzong complexes in Tibet and areas of the Himalayas with Tibetan influence. Today most of them are lost or in ruins, a few are restored as museums, and it is only in Bhutan that we find the dzongs still alive today as administration centers and monasteries. This paper reviews some of what is known about the historical developments of the dzong type of buildings in Tibet and Bhutan, and I shall thus discuss towers, khars (mkhar) and dzongs (rdzong). The first two are included in this context as they are important in the broad picture of understanding the historical background and typological developments of the later dzongs. The etymological background for the term dzong is also to be elaborated. Backdrop What we call dzongs today have a long history of development through centuries of varying religious and socio-economic conditions. Bhutanese and Tibetan histories describe periods verging on civil and religious war while others were more peaceful. The living conditions were tough, even in peaceful times. Whatever wealth one possessed had to be very well protected, whether one was a layman or a lama, since warfare and strife appear to have been endemic. Security measures * Paper presented at the workshop "The Lhasa valley: History, Conservation and Modernisation of Tibetan Architecture" at CNRS in Paris Nov. 1997, and submitted for publication in 1999. ** Ingun B. Amundsen, architect MNAL, lived and worked in Bhutan from 1987 until 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • 7=SINO-INDIAN Phylosector
    7= SINO-INDIAN phylosector Observatoire Linguistique Linguasphere Observatory page 525 7=SINO-INDIAN phylosector édition princeps foundation edition DU RÉPERTOIRE DE LA LINGUASPHÈRE 1999-2000 THE LINGUASPHERE REGISTER 1999-2000 publiée en ligne et mise à jour dès novembre 2012 published online & updated from November 2012 This phylosector comprises 22 sets of languages spoken by communities in eastern Asia, from the Himalayas to Manchuria (Heilongjiang), constituting the Sino-Tibetan (or Sino-Indian) continental affinity. See note on nomenclature below. 70= TIBETIC phylozone 71= HIMALAYIC phylozone 72= GARIC phylozone 73= KUKIC phylozone 74= MIRIC phylozone 75= KACHINIC phylozone 76= RUNGIC phylozone 77= IRRAWADDIC phylozone 78= KARENIC phylozone 79= SINITIC phylozone This continental affinity is composed of two major parts: the disparate Tibeto-Burman affinity (zones 70= to 77=), spoken by relatively small communities (with the exception of 77=) in the Himalayas and adjacent regions; and the closely related Chinese languages of the Sinitic set and net (zone 79=), spoken in eastern Asia. The Karen languages of zone 78=, formerly considered part of the Tibeto-Burman grouping, are probably best regarded as a third component of Sino-Tibetan affinity. Zone 79=Sinitic includes the outer-language with the largest number of primary voices in the world, representing the most populous network of contiguous speech-communities at the end of the 20th century ("Mainstream Chinese" or so- called 'Mandarin', standardised under the name of Putonghua). This phylosector is named 7=Sino-Indian (rather than Sino-Tibetan) to maintain the broad geographic nomenclature of all ten sectors of the linguasphere, composed of the names of continental or sub-continental entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan: a Dialect of Amdo Tibetan Spoken in Lhagang, Khams Minyag
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Prometheus-Academic Collections Asian and African Languages and Linguistics No.11, 2017 Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan: A Dialect of Amdo Tibetan Spoken in Lhagang, Khams Minyag Suzuki, Hiroyuki IKOS, Universitetet i Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology Sonam Wangmo IKOS, Universitetet i Oslo Lhagang Town, located in Kangding Municipality, Ganzi Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China, is inhabited by many Tibetan pastoralists speaking varieties which are similar to Amdo Tibetan even though it is located at the Minyag Rabgang region of Khams, based on the Tibetan traditional geography. Among the multiple varieties spoken by inhabitants living in Lhagang Town, the Shingyag dialect is spoken in the south-western part of the town. It is somewhat different from other Amdo varieties spoken in Lhagang Town in the phonetic and phonological aspects. This article provides a word list with ca. 1500 words of Shingnyag Tibetan. Keywords: Amdo Tibetan, Minyag Rabgang, dialectology, migration pattern 1. Introduction 2. Phonological overview of Shingnyag Tibetan 3. Principal phonological features of Shingnyag Tibetan 1. Introduction This article aims to provide a word list (including ca. 1500 entries) with a phonological sketch of Shingnyag Tibetan, spoken in Xiya [Shing-nyag]1 Hamlet, located in the south-western part of Tagong [lHa-sgang] Town (henceforth Lhagang Town), Kangding [Dar-mdo] Municipality, Ganzi [dKar-mdzes] Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China (see Figure 1). Lhagang Town is in the easternmost part of Khams based on the traditional Tibetan geography, however, it is inhabited by many Tibetans whose mother tongue is Amdo Tibetan.2 Referring to Qu and Jin (1981), we can see that it is already known that Amdo-speaking Tibetans live in Suzuki, Hiroyuki and Sonam Wangmo.
    [Show full text]
  • )53Lt- I'\.' -- the ENGLISH and FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD 500605, INDIA
    DZONGKHA SEGMENTS AND TONES: A PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION KINLEY DORJEE . I Supervisor PROFESSOR K.G. VIJA Y AKRISHNAN Department of Linguistics and Contemporary English Hyderabad Co-supervisor Dr. T. Temsunungsang The English and Foreign Languages University Shillong Campus A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics SCHOOL OF LANGUAGE SCIENCES >. )53lt- I'\.' -- THE ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD 500605, INDIA JULY 2011 To my mother ABSTRACT In this thesis, we make, for the first time, an acoustic investigation of supposedly unique phonemic contrasts: a four-way stop phonation contrast (voiceless, voiceless aspirated, voiced and devoiced), a three-way fricative contrast (voiceless, voiced and devoiced) and a two-way sonorant contrast (voiced and voiceless) in Dzongkha, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Western Bhutan. Paying special attention to the 'Devoiced' (as recorded in the literature) obstruent and the 'Voiceless' sonorants, we examine the durational and spectral characteristics, including the vowel quality (following the initial consonant types), in comparison with four other languages, viz .. Hindi. Korean (for obstruents), Mizo and Tenyidie (for sonorants). While the 'devoiced' phonation type in Dzongkha is not attested in any language in the region, we show that the devoiced type is very different from the 'breathy' phonation type, found in Hindi. However, when compared to the three-way voiceless stop phonation types (Tense, Lax and Aspirated) in Korean, we find striking similarities in the way the two stops CDevoiced' and 'Lax') employ their acoustic correlates. We extend our analysis of stops to fricatives, and analyse the three fricatives in Dzongkha as: Tense, Lax and Voiced.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Classical Tibetan Pedagogy the Importance of Applying Multidisciplinary Research to Tibetan As a Second Language Education (TSL) Abstract
    Contact the author Rethinking Classical Tibetan Pedagogy The Importance of Applying Multidisciplinary Research to Tibetan as a Second Language Education (TSL) Abstract The following paper explores classical Tibetan language pedagogy as it’s generally practiced in the West, while suggesting a radical reinterpretation to that approach by providing alternatives based on the consensus of multidisciplinary research from second language education and linguistics, among others. Especial attention is paid to the importance of production processes (speaking and writing), phonology (listening and speaking), and environment (language exposure) and their roles in language learning contexts; these concerns lead us to the conclusion that the spoken language ought to be the basis for the study of sophisticated literature, even in a classical language context. We then turn toward the specific issues of Tibetan language literacy: the language diglossia; its history; why “classical” Tibetan is not a classic example of a classical language; and, briefly, how to overcome these obstacles in a Tibetan as a Second Language (TSL) educational context. Table of Contents Abstract Table of Contents 1. Grammar­Translation: The Current Model 2. Issues in Second Language Learning & Literacy (a) Production (b) Phonology (c) Environment (d) A Summary of Second Language Learning Issues 3. The Tibetan Diglossia and Its Effects on Second Language Learning (a) Diglossia: A Brief History and Its Modern Context (b) The Diglossia in Tibetan Language Education (c) The Classical Tibetan Misnomer (d) Tibetan Language Studies in Academia (e) Overcoming Language Diglossia for TSL 4. Conclusion 1 Rethinking Classical Tibetan Pedagogy The Importance of Applying Multidisciplinary Research to Tibetan as a Second Language Education (TSL)1 It’s safe to say that in the Tibetan language learning world, much ado is made about textual translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Inventing Bcud Len As Vitalising Dietary Supplements in Contemporary Tibetan Medicine
    Asian Medicine 7 (2012) 196–224 brill.com/asme Treating Essence with Essence: Re-inventing bcud len as Vitalising Dietary Supplements in Contemporary Tibetan Medicine Barbara Gerke Abstract Bcud len (pronounced chulen) or ‘essence extraction’ practices have been described in classical Tibetan medical and religious texts as an element of rejuvenation therapies and preventive anti- ageing methods. These practices include the ingestion ofbcud len pills taken as a dietary supple- ment or as a substitute for food during meditation and fasting retreats. This paper1 discusses how ideas of bcud len are interpreted by Men-Tsee-Khang-trained Tibetan doctors in India as ‘health tonics’ and ‘dietary supplements.’ What underlies contemporary Tibetan medical ideas of an ‘essence extraction’ in relation to Tibetan rejuvenation therapies and pharmacological manufac- turing practices of such ‘tonics’? I argue that not all bcud len are ‘essence extractions’ and that what constitutes an ‘essence’ receives various interpretations by contemporary Tibetan doctors. Ethnographic examples presented are based on postdoctoral fieldwork in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, India (2009–2010). Keywords Dietary supplements, essence extraction, bcud len, Tibetan medicine, Tibetan pharmacology, Sorig products Introduction The prolongation of life has occupied people’s thoughts in a multitude of dif- ferent cultural contexts. From myths and folk tales on the ‘fountain of youth’ to physiological-medical, alchemical, ritual and meditative long-life practices, longevity has been of vital concern in many societies. It has also been an important aspect of Asian medical systems, recently especially in the context of the pharmaceutical manufacturing of rejuvenating and aphrodisiac prod- ucts, largely marketed as dietary supplements.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2017 Review of Lauren Gawne Nathan W. Hill (eds.). 2016. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 40(2), 285–303 Widmer, Manuel DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.00002.wid Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-168681 Journal Article Accepted Version Originally published at: Widmer, Manuel (2017). Review of Lauren Gawne Nathan W. Hill (eds.). 2016. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 40(2), 285–303. Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area, 40(2):285-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.00002.wid Review of Evidential systems of Tibetan languages Gawne, Lauren & Nathan W. Hill (eds.). 2016. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. de Gruyter: Berlin. vi + 472 pp. ISBN 978-3-11-047374-2 Reviewed by Manuel Widmer 1 Tibetan evidentiality systems and their relevance for the typology of evidentiality The evidentiality1 systems of Tibetan languages rank among the most complex in the world. According to Tournadre & Dorje (2003: 110), the evidentiality systeM of Lhasa Tibetan (LT) distinguishes no less than four “evidential Moods”: (i) egophoric, (ii) testiMonial, (iii) inferential, and (iv) assertive. If one also takes into account the hearsay Marker, which is cOMMonly considered as an evidential category in typological survey studies (e.g. Aikhenvald 2004; Hengeveld & Dall’Aglio Hattnher 2015; inter alia), LT displays a five-fold evidential distinction. The LT systeM, however, is clearly not the Most cOMplex of its kind within the Tibetan linguistic area.
    [Show full text]
  • Day 1: Handouts (Tibet)
    Handout One: Introducing Tibet [With Country Names] First, let’s look at this world map. Find the United States. Now let’s find China! Tibet is a region within China. This is a map of Tibet’s six prefectures and its capital city, Lhasa. On the map of China below, find Tibet. What color is Tibet on this map? Did you find it? [Teacher’s Key] Handout One: Introducing Tibet [Without Country Names] First, let’s look at this world map. Find the United States. Now let’s find China! Hint: It’s light green! Tibet is a region within China. This is a map of Tibet’s six prefectures and its capital city, Lhasa. On the map of China below, find Tibet. What color is Tibet on this map? Did you find it? [Teacher’s Key] Handout Two: Quick Facts about Tibet and the Tibet Autonomous Region ★ Tibet is historically made up of three provinces of Amdo, Kham and U-Tsang. It was split up by the People’s Republic of China. The main Tibetan region now is the Tibet Autonomous Region. ★ The Tibet Autonomous Region, is a province within the People’s Republic of China. ★ Before 1950, Tibet was an independent country, but China invaded the country and took over. ★ The capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region is Lhasa. ★ The official language of the Tibet Autonomous Region is Lhasa Tibetan. ○ In schools, children are also taught Mandarin Chinese. ★ The main religion among the Tibetan people is Tibetan Buddhism. ★ In 1959, the Dalai Lama and 80,000 Tibetans fled to India for their safety.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the Syuba (Kagate) Language Documentation Corpus
    Vol. 12 (2018), pp. 204–234 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24768 Revised Version Received: 17 Jan 2018 A Guide to the Syuba (Kagate) Language Documentation Corpus Lauren Gawne SOAS University of London La Trobe University This article provides an overview of the collection “Kagate (Syuba)”, archived with both the Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC) and the Endangered Language Archive (ELAR). It pro- vides an overview of the materials that have been archived, as well as details of the workflow, conventions used, and structure of the collection. It also provides context for the content of the collection, including an overview of the language context, and some of the motivations behind the documentation project. This article thus provides an entry point to the collection. The future plans for the collection – from the perspectives of both the researcher and Syuba speakers – are also outlined, but with the overwhelming majority of items in the collection available to others, it is hoped that this article will encourage use of the materials by other researchers. 1. Introduction Language documentation involves the development of corpora of materials from which descriptions of grammar and language use can be developed, alongside other uses of the materials by both speakers of the language and researchers. Himmelmann (1998) argues that language documentation and description are two distinct, but interrelated, activities. In reality, the majority of basic linguistic descrip- tion based on primary data is undertaken by the same person who collected the data. Very little of this descriptive work makes clear the nature of the data on which it is built; in a survey of 50 published grammars and 50 PhD dissertations, Gawne et al.
    [Show full text]
  • PPD Talk by Prof. Nicolas Tournadre
    -. '" ~~Q.l·~~·q~~·~~~·~,,·rq·~,,·qt4Q.l·~~·l~~l DZONGKHA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF BHUTAN "'~=<~r\"~\"\~T"""""'" ..~ D. oN' qJ{, n..,~~V){"\ ..."."" ~ t ,. '" '" '" -.r '" 7::F. '" C\.. '" C\.. '" C\ '" '" '" ~.~~.~.u-yz:::..~z:::..(tI.~z:::..~t4QJ.~~.ct:l~~.~z:::~~·~·"~·~~z:::.·o-!sa·,,o-!·~z::r:Ir~~~·o-!~o-!·~r:;r·sa~·QJ~·.~~~.~.. ~".~QJ.~~~.QJ~.~r:;r.~. (University of Aix-Marseille, France) QJ~' ~~.~~.~~.t.lq.o-!(tI~.~~~.~~. C\..C\.. C\.. C\.. C\.. C\.. C\.. ",C\C\..C\.. ~~'~'~z:::.' ~~~~'r:;r~QJ'~' ~z:::.~·-o~·7·o-!·QJ·u-y~·~~·,,~~·(Tibeto-Bunnan) ~.~.~(tI~.~a:;~.-o~.~~.o-!. C\..-.r '" C\.. '" C\.. C\.. C\.. C\.. '" C\.. ~(tI~.~r:;rz:::..~."l.QJ.~".~~.~~.(Professor Nicolas 'J:oumadre) o-!a:;~'~~' ~~·u-y~·,,~·t.I~·~S·~~~·~· '" '" C\..'" C\..C\.. C\.. C\ '" '" sa~'QJ~' ~~.~.~~.~~.~. ~~z:::.·r:;r4~·~~z:::.·~·~~·o-!·~~·~z:::.·r~r~S~·~~z:::.·~·r:;r·o-!~~1r '" '" C\.. '" C\.. C\..-.r '" ~~z:::.·r:;r4~·~~·~~1 ~z:::..(tI.~z:::..a:;~.~~.~.~".~~.~~·o-!z:::.·o-!·u-y~·t.I~·~z:::.·~C4QJl ~'~~~1 ~z:::.'t.Iq·~'*r:;r·~~·t.lq·~r:;r·l~~·~·'1QJ·~i!~~·(tIz:::.l"l·'1:fz:::.'Sz:::.·~1a5.J·~~ ~l~l ~o-!'~l~' ~:~o QJ~' l{.:oo ~~l C\..~ a;~·:uz:::.~1 ~'a:l~' '.l...'.l...lo"I'.l...o'}~ ~l 4~·"r:;r·~QJ·o-!~~1 '" §z:::.·a:;~1 Phone: 322663/325226/325227/323721 Fax: 322992 P.O Box 122 Email: [email protected] Website: www.dzongkha.gov.bt Nicolas Tournadre's Curriculum Vitae Name: Nicolas Toumadre / '",?~.q~"'a:;~.~.q~~. Professor at the University of Aix-Marseille, linguistics department CN~~r~r"'- aI~:~llrmJ::r~ra5~'a,- ~l·~~II ""·qc:rc5~·~~ l~'ifl~"- 'a5~'aII E~ail : [email protected] Professional site: www.nicolas-tournadre.net Education 1984 MA in Russian Literature, Sorbonne University 1987 BA in Tibetan language and civilisation, Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilisation (INalco, Paris) 1989 Louis Forest prize-winning awarded by the "Chancellerie des Universites de Paris".
    [Show full text]